Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Department Tells Judge That Microsoft Settlement Is Tough on Company
AP ^ | 11/15/01 | Ted Bridis

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:58 PM PST by Jean S

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:58 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JeanS
The Justice Department is telling the judge that the "easy chair" they have prepared for big-time contributor Microsoft is really an "electric chair". I wonder if the judge will be fooled.
2 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:01 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
"Your honor we are preparing the wet noodle to beat upon microsoft"


"Your honor we are not just consumers we are now shareholders."

"Your honor this agreement means if microsoft violates the
terms the court will have the authority to look at
bill gates sternly and wag your index finger and say stop that."

"Your honor we have achieved corporate peace in our time."

"Your honor this is really tough. please stop laughing."

"No your honor this paragaph does not mean you are bill
gates bitch. Yes I know it says that in black and
white. The word judicial bitch is open to interpritation"

"No your honor the other judges will not call you wussy boy."

"Your honor, just think of your legacy"

Translation: blink

3 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:37 PM PST by aabbccddeeff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates defended the settlement as tough but one that "we're really pleased to have."

[[shudder]]

I just got that feeling I used to get when watching Clinton speak.

4 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:50 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Why does the judge have to okay the settlement as "tough enough"? I thought it was the gummint attorneys that were prosecuting this thing. Not the court. If they agree to go easy why should the judge care?
5 posted on 11/16/2001 1:21:51 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
If they agree to go easy why should the judge care?

Seriously? You don't know the reason for this?

Because prosecutors are political creatures. Theoretically, the judge is an 'unbiased' person representing the 'public good', which the prosecutors are not. The judge plays the role of 'plaintiff', in place of 'the people'.

The last time a voluntary settlement was reached between the govt and MS, the judge nixed it. Then the MS-friendly Appeals court -- yes, the same one -- removed that judge. The new judge, Penfield Jackson, okayed the decision. He was later, of course, removed himself.

6 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:48 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Seriously? You don't know the reason for this? Because prosecutors are political creatures. Theoretically, the judge is an 'unbiased' person representing the 'public good', which the prosecutors are not. The judge plays the role of 'plaintiff', in place of 'the people'. The last time a voluntary settlement was reached between the govt and MS, the judge nixed it. Then the MS-friendly Appeals court -- yes, the same one -- removed that judge. The new judge, Penfield Jackson, okayed the decision. He was later, of course, removed himself.

Ah, I see. The judges are 'unbiased' but the prosecutors are not. Can you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements, Harr?
7 posted on 11/16/2001 1:24:58 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
BTW, you do realize that this case is over except for the crying, right?
8 posted on 11/16/2001 1:24:58 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
The judges are 'unbiased' but the prosecutors are not.

New to all these legal concepts, eh?

The theory goes that the judges are appointed for a long period of time, and are therefore not subject to being fired for making a politically unpopular idea. They're certainly more independent than Prosecutors, who can be fired today if the boss gets a big enough payoff from the criminal facing prosecution.

Prosecutors, of course, have to do what they're told, or else.

It's a good theory. Of course it doesn't always work, but in general it holds true to form.

9 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:02 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Jackson was removed for FLAGRANT misconduct. I don't care if it's Al Capone, Osama bin Laden, or Bill Gates at the defendant's table, a judge should NOT be exuding bias all over the place.
10 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:08 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
It's a good theory. Of course it doesn't always work, but in general it holds true to form.

Except in this case, we have a judge who gave evidence of his hatred toward Microsoft in secret ex parte communications with reporters. That may not have met the bar for the Appeals Court's standard of 'bias' but, in most peoples' opinions, it stinks to high heaven. You just keep telling us Jackson had no bias. We'll keep laughing.
11 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:11 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Jackson was removed for FLAGRANT misconduct.

Nope. That's a lie -- unless you never actually looked and just don't know any better.

From the appeals court decision:

Thus, although Microsoft alleged only appearance of bias, not actual bias, we have reviewed the record with painstaking care and have discerned no evidence of actual bias.

And

Although Microsoft challenged very few of the findings as clearly erroneous, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and discern no basis to suppose that actual bias infected his factual findings.

The judge said a few things to the press that "sound bad", but in no way acted biased against MS.

And *that* is the truth.

12 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:13 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Right. Sure. And those ex parte communications with Auletta were just a big BS session. If you really think that, then I'll sell you a bridge in Chappaquiddick real cheap after my date with Britney Spears tonight.
13 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:21 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Oh, what the heck. If you're going to give me more excuse to disprove the Clinton 'The Prosecution was biased' defense.

Again, from the appeals court decision:

The earliest interviews we know of began in September 1999, shortly after the parties finished presenting evidence but two months before the court issued its Findings of Fact.

The judge was stupid enough to think he could be honest with reporters about what he had learned of MS, and said some uncomplementary things about MS to the press, because of MS's conduct.

Again, from the decision:

We recognize that it would be extraordinary to disqualify a judge for bias or appearance of partiality when his remarks arguably reflected what he learned, or what he thought he learned, during the proceedings.

And

Disqualification is mandatory for conduct that calls a judge's impartiality into question.

It was mandatory once MS asked for it. MS is judge shopping, in the finest old tradition.

Thank you for the opportunity to make my case.

14 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:22 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
And those ex parte communications with Auletta were just a big BS session.

Dude -- read the appeals court decision. You're blindly incorrect.

Check the post to Shrub2000, above. The first interviews with Auletta were *after* all evidence was in. The judge was unbiased, and made up his mind on the basis of the evidence. He found MS had done bad things, and said so.

MS complained, and had him removed. Judge shopping.

You really need to read these things, arguing without facts won't likely increase your credibility.

15 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:23 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I forgot the /sarcasm tag.

Frankly, I have to still point out that Judge Jackson did something wrong. He should not have commented on the case, period. This is pretty serious misconduct on his part. Why didn't the states try to defend him in the hearing?

16 posted on 11/16/2001 1:25:25 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I forgot the /sarcasm tag.

Oops, sorry.

The states and all *did* defend him rather well. But the appeals court decided that removal was mandatory if *any* appearance of bias developed, even if no real bias was evident.

That's actually the way I prefer it.

The judge should have waited to give the interviews.

17 posted on 11/16/2001 1:26:55 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
It is time to get past that Clinton hate American business nonsense and let Microsoft get on with its work. We should all be so grateful that Microsoft is an American company making big big bucks. The money is staying here and the money is feeding our families. The more they take over the world market in software the better. I hope their XBOX is a tremendous success and that they need more and more programmers. I just wish that there were more American kids studying math, science and computer programming than listening to RAP.
18 posted on 11/16/2001 1:26:58 PM PST by IceGirl2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
You're just as much of a Clintonista defender of Judge Jackson as you accuse me and Bush2000 of being when we defend Microsoft. The fact is, you have the result you want to see, and if it doesn't happen the thing is fixed.
19 posted on 11/16/2001 1:27:00 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
You're just as much of a Clintonista defender of Judge Jackson

Um -- so the appeals court's decision that he wasn't biased doesn't move you at all?

See, my point is, I looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion. That conclusion is supported *by* the evidence, and was supported by the appeals court and Supreme Court.

You are arguing that the facts do not matter, and that there was a biased judge. You refuse to even look up the facts, and never even read the conclusions of the court to see what the truth is -- even when your errors are pointed out.

Now which position is 'Clintonista'?

You defend blindly. I defend with quotes from the legal record.

Remember debating with Clintonistas? You post evidence, laws, all that, and they just blindly say it was a frame up, their guy is innocent, this is all about 'sex'?

20 posted on 11/16/2001 1:27:06 PM PST by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson